Did Trump engage in illegal collusion or not? Poll included.

[JonnyRingo84]

Is Obama an American citizen? How can anyone confidently put "yes" or "no" at this point?

lmao

 

[Prex32]

he took advantage of the things already floating around about hc just like everybody else would do

 

[Pinyin]

This is classic. You are going to risk your personal safety by using google to access public information?

You have flipped your already inadeqate capacitors.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

You might want to reread exchange, so as not to embarrass yourself further here.

 

[tonni]

Well look at that. After banning all the conservative Trump supporters we've created ourselves a little liberal CT echo chamber. And now the majority of the forum believes in fairy tales and lives in another world.

1. *
   Yes
   34 vote(s)
   26.4%
2. 
   No
   67 vote(s)
   51.9%
3. 
   Undecided
   28 vote(s)
   21.7%
   
   

 

[PainIsLIfe]

no, they have to vote on it. that is very different. there isnt a judge or anything. just a vote.

Yes and no. The House can call for impeachment for whatever reason it likes. The Senate is the "judge".

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors is the standard and the SC has previously ruled that they would step in to hear a case if a presidential impeachment didn't meet the standard:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253. - Souter

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244 - White​

 

[Fedorable]

This is clear cut confirmation that you are a paid shill.

Anyone with half a brain knows who Cambridge Analytica is.

never heard of her.

 

[cleetus]

I just want to see a show of hands in the war room here. I chose undecided.

Here’s why. Trump certainly is acting guilty. But that doesn’t mean he is guilty. We have to keep in mind he has the brain power of a child. He may just view any attempt to investigate him as insulting, and that may be his entire reason for wanting to shit down the investigation. So I really don’t know which way this one goes. But it certainly looks bad on the surface, at least for Trump.

Also, the question isn’t “did Trump himself do it?” It is more, “did he or anyone on his staff do it with his knowledge?” He doesn’t necessarily have to have flown to Russia, met with Putin, etc.

Your poll is flawed, dude. Even if he DID collude (he didn't), it is NOT illegal by any federal standards.

 

[BjPenn2017]

This whole Russia thing seems like the leftist equivalent of a conspiracy theory. Just a bunch of idiots throwing shit at a wall until something sticks.

 

[FIMN]

This whole Russia thing seems like the leftist equivalent of a conspiracy theory. Just a bunch of idiots throwing shit at a wall until something sticks.

The consistent lying between Trumps transition and campaign teams about Russian contacts, as well as Don Jr admitting he tried to get dirt on HRC from Russian sources is a big red flag.

Given all the lies so far, I'm not sure why everyone believes anything from Trump or his team.

Mueller managed to get 19 of the countries top legal minds to drop everything they were doing to pursue this case. It seems unlikely they did so to indict Papadopolop and Flynn.

It's entertaining, to say the least.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Your poll is flawed, dude. Even if he DID collude (he didn't), it is NOT illegal by any federal standards.

Fucking shit, can anyone read? There are forms of collusion which are illegal. Hence, the word “illegal” in front of the word “collusion.” You know what, i don’t think it’s that you guys can’t read. I think it’s that all the pundits’ new talking point is that collusion isn’t illegal, so you’re just repeating it as nauseum. But collusion certainly can be illegal depending on the circumstances and what the parties colluded to do.

 

[Morning Star]

Do I think he did, no and I think it's been a witch hunt if anything. However you asked did he. I'm not the one doing the investigation so I can't answer that with the current knowledge I process. Went undecided because of the language of the question.

 

[N13]

 

[DickSarp]

Too many Corleone buffers usually spell trouble for criminal investigations. But President Trump has lied about his own Russian connections many times so there really is no telling how deep his traitorous acts go. We know he has no compunction about breaking the law for profit or gain. Would it really surprise anyone that Trump sought Russian aid in sabotaging the election in his favor? Or that he's in deep hoch to the Russian state or Mafia for keeping his paper empire afloat like a turd in a toilet bowl?

Imagine the political forum in the future with the standards Trump has set....the discussions are over before they begin. Continuous self-serving lying. Sabotaging federal agencies by direct attack or by appointing contrarians as directors. First order of business is completely overturning anything your predecessor accomplished. Jailing your political opponents is normalized. Bigotry as policy initiative.

In short:

Any measure taken to 'win' is fair game and expected bc the only crime is getting caught.

 

[Trotsky]

Well look at that. After banning all the conservative Trump supporters we've created ourselves a little liberal CT echo chamber. And now the majority of the forum believes in fairy tales and lives in another world.

51% of respondents said "no"

26% said "yes."

Your majority claim seems kind of fucking stupid, eh?

Also, you're a willfully ignorant biblical literalist, and a statistical illiterate to boot.

 

[HereticBD]

Fucking shit, can anyone read? There are forms of collusion which are illegal. Hence, the word “illegal” in front of the word “collusion.” You know what, i don’t think it’s that you guys can’t read. I think it’s that all the pundits’ new talking point is that collusion isn’t illegal, so you’re just repeating it as nauseum. But collusion certainly can be illegal depending on the circumstances and what the parties colluded to do.

Again. the term you're looking for is "conspiracy".

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again. the term you're looking for is "conspiracy".

They're synonyms, and they both apply.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Again. the term you're looking for is "conspiracy".

Who cares? Is that really the issue here? They don’t call it collusion when competing firms agree to limit production to drive up the cost of their products, btw. They call it collusion.

So, did anyone who is a conservative pick any answer other than “no”?

 

[Culombo]

 

[7437]

Yes and no. The House can call for impeachment for whatever reason it likes. The Senate is the "judge".

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors is the standard and the SC has previously ruled that they would step in to hear a case if a presidential impeachment didn't meet the standard:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253. - Souter

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244 - White​

they would have a "trial" that they are both the jury and the judge of. As long as they do the procedure, they can "convict" him of anything they damn well want.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

they would have a "trial" that they are both the jury and the judge of. As long as they do the procedure, they can "convict" him of anything they damn well want.

But the SC has already said that they would step in if the Senate didn't follow the guidlines.

Its a moot point any way because the Senate needs 66 vote to impeach and they'd never get it without an actual crime taking place.